Voting Power...

[NOBLE]

Originally Posted by Krhyme Killz

but NOBLE...the point is, this is only an issue because we are more vigilant in lowering VP but never upping it...i'm guilty of it too..i probably lower vs. up VP in a 25:1 ratio. doing anything automatically...at least to me...only further complicates and worsens the issue. for every one person that needs their VP upped, there are 15 people who need it to stay low. so if it was automatic, we'd be lowering it 15 times, then turning around and lowering it AGAIN 14 times for the same folks

Alright. So maybe it doesn't have to be "automatic." I don't think anyone even used the word "automatic" until UA's comment. @AfterThought had suggested " lower[ing] VP for a specific period of time" but he also said that after that time period, "keepin it a 0 or raising it would be the mod's decision." So, of course we're going to use our discretion and better judgement before restoring their VP and not do it "automatically." The point is we should probably start logging these actions individually and setting a time for review to see if the person's vp should be raised rather than leaving it lowered indefinitely. Notifying users when their vp has been lowered seems to be in order as well.

[NOBLE]

Originally Posted by Krhyme Killz

but NOBLE...the point is, this is only an issue because we are more vigilant in lowering VP but never upping it...i'm guilty of it too..i probably lower vs. up VP in a 25:1 ratio. doing anything automatically...at least to me...only further complicates and worsens the issue. for every one person that needs their VP upped, there are 15 people who need it to stay low. so if it was automatic, we'd be lowering it 15 times, then turning around and lowering it AGAIN 14 times for the same folks

Alright. So maybe it doesn't have to be "automatic." I don't think anyone even used the word "automatic" until UA's comment. @AfterThought had suggested " lower[ing] VP for a specific period of time" but he also said that after that time period, "keepin it a 0 or raising it would be the mod's decision." So, of course we're going to use our discretion and better judgement before restoring their VP and not do it "automatically." The point is we should probably start logging these actions individually and setting a time for review to see if the person's vp should be raised rather than leaving it lowered indefinitely. Notifying users when their vp has been lowered seems to be in order as well.

[UNKNOWN ARTIST]

Krhyme explained it perfectly

Seems like your looking for an over complicated answer

If you feel certain people shouldn't have 0vp any more then raise it

[UNKNOWN ARTIST]

Krhyme explained it perfectly

Seems like your looking for an over complicated answer

If you feel certain people shouldn't have 0vp any more then raise it

[RhetoriK]

After reading all of the comments. Here's my take.


Let's be realists here. Coding changes won't be made immediately. We're checking battles for the most part, but going through the comments, and recognizing good votes could help.

There are bigger VP issues in the mix as stated by UA, but as far as implementing a system, that seems painstaking at minimum. Mods: Just be vigilant with who you're lowering/raising. If someone steps their game up, give them a bump.
Otherwise, the VP should stay lower. We run the risk of stepping on each other's toes with a bunch of raising though. If Krhyme raises person-X's VP and AT lowers it. It causes flux in the system.

We should probably address our procedure when we do lower vp. Perhaps when we lower vp (lets say someone finally hits 0VP) send a warning/infraction as well for visibility to the other mods. This method takes a little more time, but it ups our accountability in terms of knowing what the staff is doing with individual instances of vp +/-

I like the idea of having a systematic approach, but that's lightyears away. Let's try to agree on a method of accountability when lowering vp.

[RhetoriK]

After reading all of the comments. Here's my take.


Let's be realists here. Coding changes won't be made immediately. We're checking battles for the most part, but going through the comments, and recognizing good votes could help.

There are bigger VP issues in the mix as stated by UA, but as far as implementing a system, that seems painstaking at minimum. Mods: Just be vigilant with who you're lowering/raising. If someone steps their game up, give them a bump.
Otherwise, the VP should stay lower. We run the risk of stepping on each other's toes with a bunch of raising though. If Krhyme raises person-X's VP and AT lowers it. It causes flux in the system.

We should probably address our procedure when we do lower vp. Perhaps when we lower vp (lets say someone finally hits 0VP) send a warning/infraction as well for visibility to the other mods. This method takes a little more time, but it ups our accountability in terms of knowing what the staff is doing with individual instances of vp +/-

I like the idea of having a systematic approach, but that's lightyears away. Let's try to agree on a method of accountability when lowering vp.

[NOBLE]

I agree that whatever non-coding solution we come up with would require a little more work from us as mods, but I think "Accountability" is what it all boils down to. I'm not necessarily looking for something "overly complicated" either. I'm only asking questions. I think we're a group of smart individuals. We all recognize what the problem is, no matter how mildly or severely we perceive it to be. I don't see why we can't brainstorm and come up with a solution that would require minimal effort--other than the status quo. Also, we all recognize that there is a problem with tournament vp's. Can anyone suggest a non-coding solution to this until we can get X or someone else to change how tourney results are determined? I know UA had suggested deleting the 0vp votes before, but I forget why we stopped doing that.

[NOBLE]

I agree that whatever non-coding solution we come up with would require a little more work from us as mods, but I think "Accountability" is what it all boils down to. I'm not necessarily looking for something "overly complicated" either. I'm only asking questions. I think we're a group of smart individuals. We all recognize what the problem is, no matter how mildly or severely we perceive it to be. I don't see why we can't brainstorm and come up with a solution that would require minimal effort--other than the status quo. Also, we all recognize that there is a problem with tournament vp's. Can anyone suggest a non-coding solution to this until we can get X or someone else to change how tourney results are determined? I know UA had suggested deleting the 0vp votes before, but I forget why we stopped doing that.

[Óðinn]

@Pugz to holla at X with this Tournament voting ish.... Put gun to his head if needs be looool

On the real's though, the tournament thing should be handled already...I'd say Pugz might be able to do it, i don't know if he can or can't, either way lets get that one sorted....Been to long.

[Óðinn]

@Pugz to holla at X with this Tournament voting ish.... Put gun to his head if needs be looool

On the real's though, the tournament thing should be handled already...I'd say Pugz might be able to do it, i don't know if he can or can't, either way lets get that one sorted....Been to long.

[Teek]

I agree that something should be worked on as far as accountability.

Reading through the thread, Probably the EASIEST way to accomplish the whole lowering VP/ notification/accountability thing would just be to infract every time we lower VP, even if it's marked as a warning (so no points are added).

This notfies the voter with a msg on what happened/why and how to get it reinstated in the future.

It notifies staff by letting everyone know VP was lowered, so we don't step on toes and reup right behind them.

I'm also for the idea of reading through comments and upping VP more as we look at battles we come across if we feel that person deserves it. By having the above record of who does what, it'll be easier to keep in mind who not to up. So basically the only bit of work put in is the actual infraction, which if you're lowering it for a reason, should probably get the infraction anyway.

As for the Tourney stuff, I believe we need to work on something soon with the LBT coming up. I'm sure if we toss around ideas, something can be adressed before the first votes drop. If we can't get shit coded, maybe deleting the 0vp's manually is the only solution. It's a simple out.

[Teek]

I agree that something should be worked on as far as accountability.

Reading through the thread, Probably the EASIEST way to accomplish the whole lowering VP/ notification/accountability thing would just be to infract every time we lower VP, even if it's marked as a warning (so no points are added).

This notfies the voter with a msg on what happened/why and how to get it reinstated in the future.

It notifies staff by letting everyone know VP was lowered, so we don't step on toes and reup right behind them.

I'm also for the idea of reading through comments and upping VP more as we look at battles we come across if we feel that person deserves it. By having the above record of who does what, it'll be easier to keep in mind who not to up. So basically the only bit of work put in is the actual infraction, which if you're lowering it for a reason, should probably get the infraction anyway.

As for the Tourney stuff, I believe we need to work on something soon with the LBT coming up. I'm sure if we toss around ideas, something can be adressed before the first votes drop. If we can't get shit coded, maybe deleting the 0vp's manually is the only solution. It's a simple out.

[Krhyme Killz]

would users knowing that their VP was lowered discourage them from voting at all?

[Krhyme Killz]

would users knowing that their VP was lowered discourage them from voting at all?

[Óðinn]

Originally Posted by Krhyme Killz

would users knowing that their VP was lowered discourage them from voting at all?

Yeah that's a good point tbh....that could also lead us down the road of "Random Votes" just to get credits, since there VP lowered, they won't really care as much as they did before they knew there VP was lowered.

[Óðinn]

Originally Posted by Krhyme Killz

would users knowing that their VP was lowered discourage them from voting at all?

Yeah that's a good point tbh....that could also lead us down the road of "Random Votes" just to get credits, since there VP lowered, they won't really care as much as they did before they knew there VP was lowered.

[UNKNOWN ARTIST]

When ohs found out he had 0vp he never shut up about it to the point it got annoying as fuck ... It never made him vote any fairer either ... Dropping 10-1 votes with the expo "Your a Fag" .. Lol

[UNKNOWN ARTIST]

When ohs found out he had 0vp he never shut up about it to the point it got annoying as fuck ... It never made him vote any fairer either ... Dropping 10-1 votes with the expo "Your a Fag" .. Lol

[RhetoriK]

Originally Posted by Krhyme Killz

would users knowing that their VP was lowered discourage them from voting at all?

Does it matter how motivated they are to vote when they're shit's zeroed though? lol


No I get you.. I think we should formally infract (no warn) when the VP is Zeroed. At that point it won't matter how butt hurt they get. They can choose to fix their game up or just ..die for all I care. That's three strikes in my book. if they continue voting with 0VP then we'll evaluate as we see fit. If they leave the site. Good riddance.

[RhetoriK]

Originally Posted by Krhyme Killz

would users knowing that their VP was lowered discourage them from voting at all?

Does it matter how motivated they are to vote when they're shit's zeroed though? lol


No I get you.. I think we should formally infract (no warn) when the VP is Zeroed. At that point it won't matter how butt hurt they get. They can choose to fix their game up or just ..die for all I care. That's three strikes in my book. if they continue voting with 0VP then we'll evaluate as we see fit. If they leave the site. Good riddance.